Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 02:12:22PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Policy also states that different packages must not install commands
>> with different functionality with the same name.
>> Such packages would have to Conflicts anyway, and gratuituous conflict
> must be avoided. This is not a waivable requiremrent.
As a strawman example, here is what I was thinking of when I asked that:
nodejs package adds a "nodejs" command which behaves exactly like "node"
in Debian (this has already been done) and upstream (working on it).
node package renames /usr/sbin/node to /usr/sbin/axnode but keeps
/usr/sbin/node as a wrapper that prints a warning and then calls axnode
(a patch doing that has been proposed, but Pat has disparaged it as doing
too little)
Packages depending on nodejs use the "nodejs" command instead of "node"
(this would be a lot of work, but probably doable)
ax25d and node maintainer scripts update configuration to refer to
/usr/sbin/axnode instead of /usr/sbin/node (will require ham radio
maintainer cooperation)
That way:
- node and nodejs don't conflict
- while there are two "node" commands, no Debian package uses either
- people using the "node" command with both packages installed
know they're asking for trouble and have an alternative available
- existing scripts and installations using one of the two "node"
commands are not broken unless the other is also installed
- installations with /usr/sbin symlinked to /usr/bin are broken.
But I don't think anyone actually does that on Debian systems.
Maybe this is not a great idea. My basic question was whether this
kind of thing (i.e., potentially ok outcomes not currently permitted
by policy) is possible or not worth thinking about at all.